So...interconnectedness? Is this just some kind of poetic, obfuscated, uninformative way of saying that everything is part of one reality?

No, indivisibility. The universe is one thing in which every part is completely interdependent on every other part in one way or another; for example, "93% of the mass in our body is stardust. (Source: http://physicscentral.com/explore/poster-stardust.cfm)." Intellectually we know this yet our experience is of separateness. That's a paradox. It's the nature of reality.

Our experience is based on perception. We can perceive things that are not objectively true, as in an optical illusion. The self/other distinction is also an illusion but this one involves all of the senses, not just sight.

No, indivisibility. The universe is one thing in which every part is completely interdependent on every other part in one way or another; for example, "93% of the mass in our body is stardust. (Source: http://physicscentral.com/explore/poster-stardust.cfm)." Intellectually we know this yet our experience is of separateness.

So...interconnectedness? Everything is a constituent of the totality of reality - yes I can agree to that.

Quote

That's a paradox. It's the nature of reality.

I see no paradox.

Quote

Our experience is based on perception. We can perceive things that are not objectively true, as in an optical illusion. The self/other distinction is also an illusion but this one involves all of the senses, not just sight.

Out of curiosity how would define 'objective'?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

So...interconnectedness? Everything is a constituent of the totality of reality - yes I can agree to that.

Bold mind.

Don't you see that the idea of 'things' is merely a mental construct based on a limited perspective? Where do you end and where does the rest of the universe begin? Is not your body entirely dependent on oxygen, pressure, gravity, sensory stimuli etc. from your surroundings? The ingredients of an identity are genetics and environmental conditioning. But because of a skewed perspective we consider the cells that make up our bodies "us" and everything else "not us." However, we are a little more than just 'connected' to our surroundings. They are an integral part of us and ultimately there is no distinction.

But because of a skewed perspective we consider the cells that make up our bodies "us" and everything else "not us." However, we are a little more than just 'connected' to our surroundings. They are an integral part of us

I, for one, might be able to be swayed to this POV, given limited parameters.

Quote

and ultimately there is no distinction.

This one? Not so much. How is there not a distinction? And further, how does this view you hold shape your reality? Your day to day existence?

This one? Not so much. How is there not a distinction? And further, how does this view you hold shape your reality? Your day to day existence?

There is no distinction in absolute terms. In relative terms there is. I am more me than that rock over there. But in absolute terms there is only one energy that was released in the big bang in various forms of complexity.

Thinking in absolutes helps me in two ways:

1. Contentment: It is impossible for an individual to ever have completeness, wholeness or absolute contentment. Many atheists allude to this when they talk about how heaven would eventually get boring even if you could have anything you could ever want. After a while we reckon too much of a good thing turns into a bad thing.

Others feel that wholeness is possible and strive for it. The feel incomplete and search for things they believe will bring them absolute contentment. When they achieve their goals they still do not feel complete, though they don't know what they lack.

Well, my belief is the reason we can never find absolute satisfaction in life is because of this self idea. It's only a very limited perspective, useful for our survival (i.e. "I need food") but when applied to psychological issues such as contentment it creates problems. Psychologically, if there is no me there is nothing that can lack anything, hence no feeling that I am somehow incomplete. There is no need to pursue happiness because there is no me to do the seeking or find the happiness. It's already right here relatively (compared to when I firmly believed in my individuality as an absolute reality).

2. The small details of life: Negative emotions are easier to detail with. In absolute terms when someone cuts me off in traffic it is a certain form of complexity in the universe, nothing more. This leads to less anger. With no individual there is no free will. So any past mistakes I've made were unavoidable. This leads to less regret. With no self there is nothing to lose therefore nothing to fear, etc.

-It fits in by being an example of the contradiction between what our sense perceptions tell us about reality and what we know intellectually about the overall oneness of the universe. The sense of self causes us to have a limited perspective in which "oneness" doesn't make sense. But oneness does make sense if you ignore your sense of self and sense perceptions and conceive of the universe in terms of one energy, the single energy of the singularity. I was just pointing that out to jdawg70 who suggested "31ism" in response to "oneness."

-A god is not necessary when the oneness of the universe is viewed as the absolute reality, which incidentally is not my belief but just an example of oneness that we are all familiar with.

-No. I subscribe to the basic, nondualist definition of God which is simply "not two." Meaning is an illusion therefore any words used to describe God, even the words "not two" are illusions. So that is as far as that goes. "Not two," with the implication of "one." That is as close as we can get to describing the ultimate nature of reality.

-No. I subscribe to the basic, nondualist definition of God which is simply "not two." Meaning is an illusion therefore any words used to describe God, even the words "not two" are illusions. So that is as far as that goes. "Not two," with the implication of "one." That is as far as we can get to describing the ultimate nature of reality.

Wow, now I'm even more confused. But you do have a worldview I've always found to be interesting.

So, you do believe in a god, and for sake of discussion, we'll call it "one". Now, is this "one" seperate from the universe, or is it the universe? Is this "one" sentient?

-It fits in by being an example of the contradiction between what our sense perceptions tell us about reality and what we know intellectually about the overall oneness of the universe. The sense of self causes us to have a limited perspective in which "oneness" doesn't make sense. But oneness does make sense if you ignore your sense of self and sense perceptions and conceive of the universe in terms of one energy, the single energy of the singularity. I was just pointing that out to jdawg70 who suggested "31ism" in response to "oneness."

-A god is not necessary when the oneness of the universe is viewed as the absolute reality, which incidentally is not my belief but just an example of oneness that we are all familiar with.

-No. I subscribe to the basic, nondualist definition of God which is simply "not two." Meaning is an illusion therefore any words used to describe God, even the words "not two" are illusions. So that is as far as that goes. "Not two," with the implication of "one." That is as close as we can get to describing the ultimate nature of reality.

I'm sorry, but you just don't seem to be talking about a coherent concept. It's simply infathomable. That's why I did the snide jab with "31ism" or whatever I typed...you could apply any random jumble of words and you would have conveyed exactly as much information.

So far as I can tell there is no difference between the statements you are making and random words picked from a hat. I realize this may sound offensive, but please try not to take it that way. But the words you're typing, as you yourself have pointed out, are nonsense.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

So, you do believe in a god, and for sake of discussion, we'll call it "one". Now, is this "one" seperate from the universe, or is it the universe? Is this "one" sentient?

For the first question, God is one with the universe which paradoxically is not the same as being the universe. Keep in mind that there are limits to communication in any life form. Discussing God is a bit like two minnows in a pond discussing the ecosystem of the earth through body language.

In nondualism, the universe is thought of in various ways. One is that it is a changing, temporal manifestation of a deeper unchanging, eternal reality and the analogy used for this is that the universe is like waves on the surface of a deep lake. In this case the universe is real.

But the kind of nondualism I'm into says that it is an utter illusion with no reality at all and the metaphor is that it is like a dream. In this case the universe is a 'dream of separation' that only seems to takes place.

As for the second question, no we cannot say that God is sentient because aware/unaware is a duality and God is nondual. For that matter existence/nonexistence is a duality so we can't even say that God is. The only words that even get close to working are "not two" without the "God is" in front. But even "not two" is based in duality because two/not two is a duality. This is just a limitation of thought and language, both of which are inherently dualistic. There is no way around it.

So, you do believe in a god, and for sake of discussion, we'll call it "one". Now, is this "one" seperate from the universe, or is it the universe? Is this "one" sentient?

For the first question, God is one with the universe which paradoxically is not the same as being the universe. Keep in mind that there are limits to communication in any life form. Discussing God is a bit like two minnows in a pond discussing the ecosystem of the earth through body language.

In nondualism, the universe is thought of in various ways. One is that it is a changing, temporal manifestation of a deeper unchanging, eternal reality and the analogy used for this is that the universe is like waves on the surface of a deep lake. In this case the universe is real.

But the kind of nondualism I'm into says that it is an utter illusion with no reality at all and the metaphor is that it is like a dream. In this case the universe is a 'dream of separation' that only seems to takes place.

As for the second question, no we cannot say that God is sentient because aware/unaware is a duality and God is nondual. For that matter existence/nonexistence is a duality so we can't even say that God is. The only words that even get close to working are "not two" without the "God is" in front. But even "not two" is based in duality because two/not two is a duality. This is just a limitation of thought and language, both of which are inherently dualistic. There is no way around it.

-It fits in by being an example of the contradiction between what our sense perceptions tell us about reality and what we know intellectually about the overall oneness of the universe. The sense of self causes us to have a limited perspective in which "oneness" doesn't make sense. But oneness does make sense if you ignore your sense of self and sense perceptions and conceive of the universe in terms of one energy, the single energy of the singularity. I was just pointing that out to jdawg70 who suggested "31ism" in response to "oneness."

-A god is not necessary when the oneness of the universe is viewed as the absolute reality, which incidentally is not my belief but just an example of oneness that we are all familiar with.

-No. I subscribe to the basic, nondualist definition of God which is simply "not two." Meaning is an illusion therefore any words used to describe God, even the words "not two" are illusions. So that is as far as that goes. "Not two," with the implication of "one." That is as close as we can get to describing the ultimate nature of reality.

Can you not see how you are utterly contradicting yourself in these statements?

Just because you can open your mouth and have words come out doesn't mean those words will make any sense. So too, regarding "all is illusion", saying it is so doesn't make it so. I already refuted this idea entirely in a previous post, and since you are still maintaining and unwilling to admit when you are in error I can reasonably conclude that you are intellectually dishonest.

So, you do believe in a god, and for sake of discussion, we'll call it "one". Now, is this "one" seperate from the universe, or is it the universe? Is this "one" sentient?

For the first question, God is one with the universe which paradoxically is not the same as being the universe. Keep in mind that there are limits to communication in any life form. Discussing God is a bit like two minnows in a pond discussing the ecosystem of the earth through body language.

Being one with the 'verse, while not being the 'verse, seems a tad dualistic. Amiright?

Quote

In nondualism, the universe is thought of in various ways. One is that it is a changing, temporal manifestation of a deeper unchanging, eternal reality and the analogy used for this is that the universe is like waves on the surface of a deep lake. In this case the universe is real.

Sure, I can go with that. But I still see no reason to ponder a god. I mean, what you're saying is a hypothetical to which many scientists, as well as atheists, give thought. It's entirely plausible that the 'verse is cyclical, unending, and quite possibly eternal. And the present iteration, our present reality, is a mere blip, or wave if you like, in the unending cycle.

Quote

But the kind of nondualism I'm into says that it is an utter illusion with no reality at all and the metaphor is that it is like a dream. In this case the universe is a 'dream of separation' that only seems to takes place.

Now this? This I don't get. Reality IS. How can it not? It's not an illusion, in as much as an illusion is something that isn't real. This reality is real. You are not being decieved. It's possible we're not in agreement on the definitions here though. It's possible you're attempting to use poetic license to make your case, in which case I get it. If not, if you're using the words as defined in most english dictionaries, well then, I'd have to say you're probably wrong. And, if you disagree and tell me you're right, then you're going to have to present some evidence that this is all illusion. Because I can prove, to you, that I indeed am "real".

Quote

As for the second question, no we cannot say that God is sentient because aware/unaware is a duality and God is nondual. For that matter existence/nonexistence is a duality so we can't even say that God is. The only words that even get close to working are "not two" without the "God is" in front. But even "not two" is based in duality because two/not two is a duality. This is just a limitation of thought and language, both of which are inherently dualistic. There is no way around it.

And as far as your god being/not being sentient, well, I'm still as confused as ever. You basically attempt to say things in incoherent ways, incomplete thoughts, and try to pass them off as "mystical". Sorry Charlie, but you're just espousing bullshit, as far as I can tell. Sure, our language has limitations, but the ability to pass on information, to share thoughts and concepts, has been refined for hundereds of thousands of years. Talking in riddles is for children.

Just because you can open your mouth and have words come out doesn't mean those words will make any sense. So too, regarding "all is illusion", saying it is so doesn't make it so. I already refuted this idea entirely in a previous post, and since you are still maintaining and unwilling to admit when you are in error I can reasonably conclude that you are intellectually dishonest.

OK, I'm in error. You win. I already said my position is illogical and contradictory. I will add incoherent to that. What else do you want?

From my perspective, it is impossible for "refutation" to mean anything because duality, such as truth/falsehood is an illusion. All viewpoints are only relatively wrong or right. No thought can be absolutely wrong or right because absolute reality is nondual.

OK, I'm in error. You win. I already said my position is illogical and contradictory. I will add incoherent to that. What else do you want?

From my perspective, it is impossible for "refutation" to mean anything because duality, such as truth/falsehood is an illusion. All viewpoints are only relatively wrong or right. No thought can be absolutely wrong or right because absolute reality is nondual.

I'm appreciative that you are willing to admit that you position is illogical, but (sorry to say) it doesn't seem very genuine. Why would you hold a belief that you know is irrational?

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, you just contradicted yourself again. You said:

Quote

No thought can be absolutely wrong or right

Is this thought absolutely right?

Like the Christians on here, you seem to be hung up on this idea of absolute certainly - that if we can't have absolute certainty of anything then every view is just as valid as another. Sorry, that's purely absurd (and btw, therefore should be rejected!). What you've done is abandon the one thing that connects you to this world and allows you to separate fact from fiction (your rational mind). If you don't think that's true then I have some land to sell you at a great price.

Nebs, theists try to do this all the time because their beliefs make no sense, but you are not going to be able to confuse us by stacking incoherent statements on top of each other instead of answering questions. You may as well abandon that tactic. Ask yourself why it is so important that you hold on to your beliefs even though theyre wrong. Really ask yourself that.